For Part I, click here
Distrust within the body politic toward each other and institutions like the American presidency is not simply the fault of Donald Trump. The meme of Donald Trump being a unique threat to American democracy creates a far too simplistic narrative that media figures have exploited in part due to preconceived biases, but perhaps most importantly due to the millions of Americans susceptible to the narrative. Instead, the climate of distrust can be traced to a current mood in the American populace that has been at least decades in the making. The latest iteration of division and conspiracy-mongering is at first shocking in the American context. American democracy is traditionally renowned for its ability to withstand crises and act with a semblance of durability and stability.
The distrust toward the political process in the public consciousness is reminiscent of a third world country with weak institutions of governance. However, upon closer analysis this distrust starts to make more sense. In 2017, 24% of polled Americans believed the country was heading in the right direction. Since 2009, more Americans have seen their country as heading in the wrong direction as opposed to heading in the right direction.
Many observers claim that stagnant wages over the last several decades for the working class combined with rapid wealth advancement for the upper class have created feelings of resentment, anger and distrust toward American economic and political institutions. Structural economic changes in recent decades ranging from free trade to the dramatic growth of Silicon Valley have made broad swaths of the American people feel left out at the expense of a rising, new economic elite with unique technical skill sets. All of these trends made Americans especially susceptible to buying into conspiracy theories of a malevolent elite placing their country under siege in a Hofstadterian fashion.
Of course, I am by no means the first one to point this out. However, these trends were largely absent in 1975 when Huntington first wrote of the crisis of trust in the presidency. Therefore, one can expect that these recent trends have only exacerbated such distrust. Indeed, the divisive modern presidencies from Clinton onward did little in terms of substantive policies to alleviate Americans’ wide-held concerns regarding the long-term future of the country. In fact, modern presidents since Clinton have only exacerbated distrust toward our governing class by advocating policies that either sharply divide the public or fail to resolve long-standing structural problems afflicting American domestic and foreign policy.
The Affordable Care act, also known as Obamacare stands out as perhaps the most divisive and complex piece of legislation in recent memory, fiercely polarizing the American public. The post-9/11 war on terror has led to US military intervention in 8 different conflict zones. When polled, Americans find these wars highly unpopular. Only 20% of Americans support sending more troops to Afghanistan, a war without end in sight, despite then-candidate Trump’s promises to draw down American involvement in that part of the world.
No single president can wholly be blamed for failing to assuage American angst and concern over the long-term direction of their country, but these concerns over structural problems continue to build, with much of the resulting distrust and frustration thrust upon whoever happens to occupy the Oval Office, making it encapsulate fear over crises on America’s horizon that have not been addressed in any fundamental, serious manner.
I am very amused at commentators who claim that Russia somehow created a climate of distrust and partisan rancor in 2016, implying that pre-2016 American political discourse was harmonious. Even the most casual political observer understands that American political anxiety simmered long before this modest foreign campaign on social media.
The bitter divisions in public life have frozen American lawmakers in a seemingly permanent state of dysfunction. The passage of legislation has slowed to a grinding halt, in uneasy contrast to a surrounding world of fast-paced flux. Indeed, the most recent congress failed to substantially reform the American healthcare system, despite an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House of representatives. The amazing inaction of the US congress has led to its historically low approval rating of 13% in the Trump era.
This phenomenon cannot be blamed on Trump alone. The presidency itself has lost significant influence over past administrations to act as a guiding light, an effective influencer of the legislative process in congress. The days of FDR, Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagan effectively using the bully pulpit of the presidency to push through a highly ambitious agenda through congress are long gone.
Our representatives and senators no longer look to the presidency, but rather to their own hyperpolarized constituents. Part of this phenomenon can be attributed to a phenomenon truly fitting for our times, what Ron Johnston, David Manley, and Kelvyn Jones in Annals of American Association of Geographers call “the big sort.” Conservatives and liberals are increasingly living in ideologically homogeneous communities, ensuring that congressional districts remain either deep-blue or deep-red, ensuring that the ruptures at the community level are reflected in the highest levels of government.
We have arrived as a country to seemingly a point of no return, wherein ideological balkanization fuels dysfunction, distrust and inaction at the highest levels of government. With this seeming tension, it is a small miracle that the chamber of the US Congress does not resemble the parliament of Ukraine.
It is easy to understand this malaise through symbols and relationships of the Trump presidency. The incessant tweeting, the inane palace intrigue driving an unhealthy media obsession and the president’s hyper-short attention span on policy substance are all obvious indicators of deeper national decline. What is perhaps most disturbing is that while most of America’s brain trust fails to grasp this truth, those on the world stage-ally or adversary-do, which is the subject for Part III.
